My theory 1 step at a time

It's still taking time to finish. The problem is writing it how the universe must do it without maths. It seems to be that the Universe always uses the number 6 for some reason. It uses it like we would use numbers in 1's. I have found that the 360 deg of a circle, the 6 quarks, the spacing of 6, the scale of 6, all seem to work together, and you can get a lot done without straying away from it. The kissing problem sort of works with all 6's as well. So if the LHC ends up with a Higgs Boson of 126 gev that wouldn't surprise me either. Anyway, so far, all of my code is in 6's.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
It's still taking time to finish. The problem is writing it how the universe must do it without maths. It seems to be that the Universe always uses the number 6 for some reason. It uses it like we would use numbers in 1's. I have found that the 360 deg of a circle, the 6 quarks, the spacing of 6, the scale of 6, all seem to work together, and you can get a lot done without straying away from it. The kissing problem sort of works with all 6's as well. So if the LHC ends up with a Higgs Boson of 126 gev that wouldn't surprise me either. Anyway, so far, all of my code is in 6's.
Click to expand...
Breaking the circle into "360 degrees" is not natural, I understand it is a human convention.
"126 gev" would be entirely a human convention as well.
But 6 as number is a real natural number and could well be involved. :)
 
Robittybob1 said:
Breaking the circle into "360 degrees" is not natural, I understand it is a human convention.
"126 gev" would be entirely a human convention as well.
But 6 as number is a real natural number and could well be involved. :)
Click to expand...

Some of these human conventions come from an older convention, and they might lead to a natural number. Like, maybe 360 deg comes from triangles, and being as they can make a natural 6 you get a 6. 3 is OK anyway, it's just a half sized particle.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Some of these human conventions come from an older convention, and they might lead to a natural number. Like, maybe 360 deg comes from triangles, and being as they can make a natural 6 you get a 6. 3 is OK anyway, it's just a half sized particle.
Click to expand...

I looked up "why does a circle have 360 degrees?" This answer will help you.
Date: 2 Jan 1995 16:34:20 -0500
From: Dr. Ken
Subject: Re: Origin of degrees

I'm glad you asked this question, because I've been wondering it myself. I
figured it had something to do with the Babylonians, who used a base 60
number system. But it sure took a lot of digging in several books to find
out anything concrete about it.

I finally found what I was looking for in a book called "A History of Pi" by
Petr Beckmann, a mathematician from Czechoslovakia. Here's the passage:

In 1936, a tablet was excavated some 200 miles from Babylon. Here one
should make the interjection that the Sumerians were first to make one of
man's greatest inventions, namely, writing; through written communication,
knowledge could be passed from one person to others, and from one
generation to the next and future ones. They impressed their cuneiform
(wedge-shaped) script on soft clay tablets with a stylus, and the tablets
were then hardened in the sun. The mentioned tablet, whose translation
was partially published only in 1950, is devoted to various geometrical
figures, and states that the ratio of the perimeter of a regular hexagon
to the circumference of the circumscribed circle equals a number which in
modern notation is given by 57/60 + 36/(60^2) (the Babylonians used the
sexagesimal system, i.e., their base was 60 rather than 10).

The Babylonians knew, of course, that the perimeter of a hexagon is
exactly equal to six times the radius of the circumscribed circle, in fact
that was evidently the reason why they chose to divide the circle into 360
degrees (and we are still burdened with that figure to this day). The
tablet, therefore, gives ... Pi = 25/8 = 3.125.

So that's who gave us the 360 degrees in the circle. See, assignment of
degree-measure to angles is somewhat arbitrary. Some choices are more
natural than others, though, and when you're working in base 60, 6x60 is a
pretty natural choice.

As a sidenote, the actual ratio that the Babylonians talk about is
6r/(2r*Pi) = 3/Pi, which is about 0.95493. They say it's 24/25 = .96.
And you might ask why we chose Pi as the letter to represent the
number 3.141592..., rather than some other Greek letter like
Alpha or Omega. Well, it's Pi as in Perimeter - the letter Pi
in Greek is like our letter P.

I hope this helps answer your question. Write back if you have
more!

-Doctor Ken, The Math Forum
Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Click to expand...
 
Well yeah that's good because hexagons are what I want. If everything was worked out to base 6 I wonder how many hits we would get in the Universe? Like the scale of Space-Time grain for example. I am scaling everything in 6's so I would expect a hit.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Well yeah that's good because hexagons are what I want. If everything was worked out to base 6 I wonder how many hits we would get in the Universe? Like the scale of Space-Time grain for example. I am scaling everything in 6's so I would expect a hit.
Click to expand...
I can't help you there.
 
My particle, and the kissing problem all made from the number 6. Not bad huh?....

ZeroParticle.jpg
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Next I repeat 12 around this one, and then loop it. Then I start the program running, and watch what happens. So as you can gather, this is most of the program finished.
Click to expand...
Show me two lines of code, otherwise I am thinking you are just doing animations. Or if there is no code as such what are you doing to connect the idea to the picture, for it is really weird you can write code to draw an object. It's new to me.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Show me two lines of code, otherwise I am thinking you are just doing animations. Or if there is no code as such what are you doing to connect the idea to the picture, for it is really weird you can write code to draw an object. It's new to me.
Click to expand...

Ok.. here's my camera control code, it doesn't count as part of the loop....

positionCamera:
control camera using arrowkeys 0,0.001,0
xp# = camera position x()
yp# = camera position y()
zp# = camera position z()

position camera xp#, yp#, zp#
cx# = cx# + mousemovey(): cy# = cy# + mousemovex()
rotate camera cx#, cy#, 0
camAngleY# = wrapvalue(camera angle y())
return

I don't actually use the graphics to do anything. That is just so that you can see what is happening. I could write all of the code in DIM's but then you wouldn't see anything.
 
Last edited:
Pincho:

The news story has nothing to do with your picture of a galaxy with bubbles around groups of millions of stars. The news story is about the "bubbles" in the gas around individual, newly-formed stars.
 
James R said:
Pincho:

The news story has nothing to do with your picture of a galaxy with bubbles around groups of millions of stars. The news story is about the "bubbles" in the gas around individual, newly-formed stars.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know but my threads were about individual stars. I just saved time by making bubbles around groups of stars.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Ok.. here's my camera control code, it doesn't count as part of the loop....

I don't actually use the graphics to do anything. That is just so that you can see what is happening. I could write all of the code in DIM's but then you wouldn't see anything.
Click to expand...
The output seems basically 2 dimensional, whereas I thought you were working with the Kissing Problem, a 3 dimensional issue? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top